If any of you were following all the Twitter chatter from the AGU Science Policy Conference in DC this week, you might recognize Representative Donna Edwards’ exhortation to scientists who are worried about the legislative threats to the NSF’s merit review process (and funding). Rep. Edwards was invited along with Rep. Jim Moran and Rep. Scott Peters about the future of science in Congress, and all three panelists made some very strong points about scientists’ role in the legislative process. But this was the most important one, because, as Rep. Peters pointed out, we are speaking up “less than you would expect”.

When members of Congress point out that there’s a lack of scientific participation in the way our country runs – and in particular, the process that funds our basic research - then we’ve clearly got a problem. I think it links very well to the discussion going on at the two previous posts I’ve written on the topic of broader impacts in the geosciences, and I’d like to keep the conversation going – and reframe the request I made in slightly broader terms, as one very helpful email suggested.

That’s it. Forget the bit about where the funding comes from, don’t worry about mentioning specific grants if you don’t want to. Just think about this simple question – hopefully a question that you should be thinking about anyway when you’re presenting at a conference or talking to a job search committee or, yes, applying for your next grant. It’s something we should all be asking ourselves throughout our careers. Why is my work important?

I’m still posting about this because the point came up in the comments that a lot of people applying for grants don’t treat the Broader Impacts section very seriously. Personally, I think this is a really bad attitude to have as a scientist in general. Above all, we should be able to say something about why our work is important besides “It’s cool”. Of course you’re doing it because you think it’s cool – that’s why you’re a scientist! But that’s just a small part of why we study the Earth, and as scientists who receive support that comes from taxpayer dollars – dollars to which, I might point out, we ourselves are also contributing – we also have an obligation to explain why our work is worthy of that support. And that includes taking the time to think about broader impacts. (Your program administrator will appreciate it, since one of the things that Congress is pressing the NSF in particular to do is be more transparent about how grants are awarded and administered.)

“But despite their shared interest in the world’s most populous nation, the Arizona legislator is no fan of Ahmed’s work. In fact, Salmon doesn’t think that the National Science Foundation (NSF) should be funding her research on tea as a model system for understanding how a warming climate is putting stress on specialty crops and the impact of those changes on farmers.

“Late last month, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed. By voice vote the legislators passed an amendment to a NSF funding bill for 2015 that says the agency can’t spend any money next year on her project, part of a collaboration with former colleagues at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, where Ahmed did a postdoc.”

That’s right: the House of Representatives passed an amendment to a major piece of legislation that attacked a specific NSF-funded grant. This isn’t just the usual complaining and soapbox pontificating any more – it’s targeted legislation. That is terrifying. Even if this particular bill doesn’t go anywhere (and this year it will probably die in the Senate), the fact that a legislator would even conceive of that kind of attack, much less manage to pull it off, should be scaring those of you who rely on federal funding for your research.

It may seem like legislators operate in a vacuum here in Washington, but most people don’t see all the work that goes on behind the scenes – and that’s where science policy work comes in. My job right now is to help the policy experts at your professional societies prevent just these kinds of attacks from happening, and we can’t do it unless we have support from the people who are hurt by it. That’s why I’m still pushing this broader impacts campaign, and why I really hope that you’ll join the few who’ve already submitted to the blog.

Comments

4 Comments

Policy is the root word of politics, if one is leary of engaging in politics, then one must accept whatever policy the politicians dictate. The elephant in the room is just that, a whole wing of the GOP is anti science. If the science polity remains apolitical, all of our great nation will lose. The ivory tower has a whole gang of luddites digging away its foundation; vote the luddites out of office, policy matters.

While I agree that targeted legislation attacking a specific research project/grant is frightening, I also believe that blogs etc are not the appropriate tool to communicate the broader impacts of a scientific discipline. What does a good job in my opinion are the Decadal Surveys from the National Academies as they address both the big picture in a way understandable for lawmakers and staffers and also in a more detailed form for the agencies and scientists. It’s also a consensus document where much thought and work went into and not an individual opinion. A good example is the recent Survey on Solar and Space Physics: A science for a technological society that clearly points out the importance and benefits of this (my) discipline for society.

That is certainly a valid point. However, what we find in interactions with Congressional staff is that while reports are valuable and carry the weight of peer review and consensus, they are very often relegated to a pile of similar reports in members’ offices and rarely (if ever) read. In addition, decadal surveys are not released frequently enough to stick in the minds of the people they’re aimed at. What often (and not totally logically) carries more weight in interactions with members and staff are personal interactions and stories coming straight from their constituents. That’s why I’m making the effort to collect information from scientists via the blog – the blog itself is not necessarily the point of the exercise, rather it is having the stories about individuals working to make an impact that can be passed on to a member or their staff. It makes it harder to treat scientists as abstractions, which is unfortunately all too easy when they’re just one in a list of names on a report.

Political Science: is it really a science? I mean you can’t drop it on your foot(geology) or burn a hole in your arm leaning on a dirty lab table(chemistry) but maybe it does have rules that predict outcomes. Ms. Ball is on the right track, grassroots advocacy is effective with anyone who must sit for election. My advice is to wander down the hall or over to the next building and ask one of your Political Science staff what they would recommend, as a way to advance your agenda. And then do what they suggest. Is political Science a real science? Its study is as old as the study of the physical sciences and just as complicated. As in any endeavor, consult an expert or two.

1 Trackback

About Jessica

Jessica Ball is a Mendenhall Postdoctoral Fellow at the U.S. Geological Survey, researching stratovolcano hydrothermal systems and how they affect volcano stability. She previously worked at the Geological Society of America's Washington DC Policy Office, learning about the intersection of Earth science and legislative affairs. Her PhD in volcanology focused on how water affects the stability of cooling lava domes, and involved both field investigations and numerical modeling applications. Her blogging covers a range of topics, from her experiences in academic geosciences to science outreach and communication to her field and lab work in volcanology.

Ideas and opinions expressed on this site are those of the authors and commenters alone. They do not necessarily represent the views of the American Geophysical Union.